Confirmation for a Modest Realism.

In the nineteenth century, William Whewell claimed that his confirmation criterion of consilience was a truth-guarantor: we could, he believed, be certain that a consilient theory was true. Since that time Whewell has been much ridiculed for this claim by critics such as J. S. Mill and Bas van Fraas...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Philosophy of Science Vol. 72; no. 5; pp. 839 - 850
Autor principal: Snyder, Laura J.
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Cambridge University Press Dec2005
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=24277102&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 24277102
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00318248
        PSC
      jtl: Philosophy of Science
      issn: 00318248
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Dec2005
      vid: 72
      iid: 5
      pid: 15979
      pub: Cambridge University Press
    artinfo:
      ui:
        24277102
        10.1086/508114
      ppf: 839
      ppct: 11
      formats:
        fmt:
          @attributes:
            type: P
            size: 105KB
      tig:
        atl: Confirmation for a Modest Realism.
      aug:
        au: Snyder, Laura J.
        affil: Department of Philosophy, St. John's University, 8000 Utopia Parkway, Jamaica, NY 11439
      su:
        Realism
        Confirmation (Logic)
        Criterion (Theory of knowledge)
        Truth
        Whewell, William, 1794-1866
        Mill, John Stuart, 1806-1873
        Van Fraassen, Bas C., 1941-
      sug:
        subj:
          Realism
          Confirmation (Logic)
          Criterion (Theory of knowledge)
          Truth
          Whewell, William, 1794-1866
          Mill, John Stuart, 1806-1873
          Van Fraassen, Bas C., 1941-
      ab: In the nineteenth century, William Whewell claimed that his confirmation criterion of consilience was a truth-guarantor: we could, he believed, be certain that a consilient theory was true. Since that time Whewell has been much ridiculed for this claim by critics such as J. S. Mill and Bas van Fraassen. I have argued elsewhere that, while Whewell's claim that consilience can guarantee the truth of a theory is clearly wrong, consilience is indeed quite useful as a confirmation criterion (Snyder 2005). Here I will show that, even when consilience gives evidence for a theory that turns out to be false, there is an important sense in which consilience shows that the theory has captured something correct about the natural-kind structure of the physical world. Whewell was therefore correct to claim that consilience provides a "criterion of reality" (Whewell [1847] 1967, vol. 2, 68). Consilience provides this by giving justification for the claim that we have really 'cut nature at its causal joints', to adapt Plato's famous phrase. Because of this, consilience can play a role in an argument for scientific realism.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: Copyright of Philosophy of Science is the property of Cambridge University Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
      item: Philosophy of Science
      holder: Cambridge University Press
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2005
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N